This would seem to be largely a courtesy. The Senate caucus is heavily whipped, perhaps even more so than the Commons caucus. And to judge by the actions of senators to date — on both sides of the aisle — the decision has already been made. The fix is in. The bill is as good as dead.

Not that it will be killed outright, you understand. The private member’s bill, introduced by Conservative MP Michael Chong, is popular with the public, as the first serious attempt to free MPs, even a little, from the iron grip of the party leadership. Moreover, it passed with all-party support in the House of Commons — by a vote of 260-17 — albeit in substantially watered-down form.

It was clear enough that a vast majority of members of Parliament did not want to enact Chong’s vision of a House of Commons, one with more empowered MPs representing more empowered grassroots. If they did, then at least a few of them would have been arguing that their parties should be enacting it: granting riding associations autonomy, codifying procedures for ousting leaders, stripping from the leader the power to expel an MP and assigning it to caucus, and so on. That’s how those rules came to exist in party constitutions in London, Canberra and Wellington. That’s how they would logically come to exist in Ottawa. Party members would decide they wanted them to exist, convince their compadres … and then they would exist.

But the Reform Act having been amended such that its stipulations with respect to caucus-leader relations are purely optional, to be adopted or not by each caucus at the beginning of each parliament, and by inviting the leader to appoint someone of his choice to approve riding associations’ choices of candidates, it seemed MPs could accomplish something they’re very good at: claiming to have done something good and meaningful when they really hadn’t. Caucuses would decide not to adopt the rules, the leader would appoint entirely loyal people (or himself) to vet candidates, and all would be as normal.

If the bill dies, however, this will in hindsight seem like an untenably risky proposition, and the Senate gambit will seem obvious. No one likes the Senate anyway; any blowback from the perception that “the fix was in,” as Andrew Coyne put it in these pages earlier this week, will quickly fade.

If the Reform Act passed, however, every caucus would have to be seen declining to empower itself after every election, and that would be awkward for MPs. Or perhaps some renegade caucus actually would empower itself, and that would be very awkward for its leader. Awkward by Canadian standards, I mean — Prime Ministers David Cameron, Tony Abbott and John Key deal with exactly that reality just fine. But Canada’s uniquely timorous and self-emasculated MPs are exactly the problem. Better to take one PR hit now than make it (at minimum) a quadrennial event.

‘Twas ever thus with the Reform Act. If it lives, it will still require politicians to muster the gumption to use it. And if they had the gumption to use it, they wouldn’t need it. MPs’ independence was not, in the main, legislated away, and there’s nothing in the Reform Act that can restore it.

This brings us to another democratic matter some are currently very eager to legislate or formalize: leaders debates. The Liberals have spent this week trying to convince us that the Conservatives did something dastardly by declining to participate in the debate(s) traditionally mounted by the “Consortium” of Canadian broadcasters. Instead they will participate in one debate hosted by Maclean’s magazine, another hosted by private Quebec broadcaster TVA, and possibly others as well.

Amusingly, the Tories’ decision was enough to turn the Toronto Star editorial board 180 degrees on the matter of the Consortium: Four years ago it was opaque and unaccountable and had to go in favour of a more defensible independent body; this week it was a “sensible” approach that had “proven its worth.” They were right the first time, of course — about the Consortium, and maybe about the independent body too. (The devil is in the details, needless to say. After all, the Consortium is an independent body.)

If MPs behave like eunuchs before pharaoh, it is because they are not willing to risk the consequences of speaking their minds

But the Conservatives’ decision proves how absurd all this hand-wringing over debates — who organizes and how many and who’s invited — has always been: If politicians want to debate, they will debate. If politicians do not want to debate, they will not debate. If they debate, it is because they wanted to; if they do not debate, it is because they did not want to. If they value debates on principle enough to risk surrendering control over them, they will do so. If they do not, they will not. Nothing will happen unless MPs want it to happen.

In exactly the same way, if MPs behave like eunuchs before pharaoh, it is because they are not willing to risk the consequences of speaking their minds. If they want the House of Commons to change, it will change. If the House of Commons does not change, it is because MPs do not want it to. Legislation is both unnecessary and beside the point.

When my assistant said there was a call from the White House, I picked up, said 'Hello' and started to ask if this was a prank

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our community guidelines for more information.